Sunday, July 13, 2014

How Sen. Alan Dixon gave us President Barack Obama

Thomas, a 43-year-old conservative U.S. Supreme Court nominee in fall 1991, had just undergone a sensational, brutal confirmation hearing in which he'd been confronted with allegations that he had sexually harassed Anita Hill, a former assistant.

And Dixon, who died last weekend a day shy of his 87th birthday, was a 64-year-old second-term Democratic senator from Illinois who was under considerable pressure from women's groups and a majority of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate to reject the nomination.

It would have been an easy no vote. Several prominent Democrats who had earlier signaled their support had changed their minds — including Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Harry Reid of Nevada and Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York. Illinois' other senator, Democrat Paul Simon, was voting against Thomas. Even two Republicans — Bob Packwood of Oregon and Jim Jeffords of Vermont — were lining up with majority Democrats to oppose the nomination.

And yet there were still 10 Democrats supporting Thomas, a nominee of President George H.W. Bush, giving him 51 votes, one more than he needed to win a lifetime seat on the high court.

But Dixon, telling reporters that "the accused gets the benefit of the doubt," became the 52nd vote to confirm Thomas.

That was on Oct. 15, 1991. And I'll pause just a moment in this narrative to observe how quaintly collegial and bipartisan Thomas' confirmation looks from the vantage point of 2014. A straight-up majority vote on an extremely controversial and highly ideological nominee? A bloc of opposition-party senators giving deference to the politicized prerogatives of the president?

Dixon paid a heavy price for his vote. At the time he appeared to be cruising to re-election in 1992, with the primary just five months off and no challenger from either party in sight. But on Oct. 17, more than 100 women waving "Dump Dixon" signs picketed a Democratic fundraiser on Navy Pier, and a search was on for liberal challenger to the centrist Dixon.

A month later, in the space of three days, Chicago attorney Al Hofeld and Cook County Recorder of Deeds Carol Moseley Braun formally announced they would mount primary challenges to Dixon. It seemed like a long shot, trying to harness the anger of base Democratic voters and overcome the party leaders — including Simon, Mayor Richard M. Daley and House Speaker Michael Madigan — who had jumped to Dixon's defense.

But Braun, fueled by umbrage and boosted by her megawatt smile, eked out a 38 percent to 35 percent victory over Dixon in March 1992, and went on trounce Republican businessman Rich Williamson by 10 percentage points in November's general election.

Dixon never expressed regret over his (unnecessary) vote to confirm Thomas even though it almost certainly cost him another six to 12 years in the Senate. Heck, there are currently nine U.S. senators older than Dixon would have been if he'd been sworn in for a fifth term in early 2005.

Instead he gave us Braun, whose inexperience and vain ineptitude resulted in the election to the Senate, six years later, of wealthy Republican idealist Peter Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald, who only beat Braun by 3 percentage points, grew disillusioned by the political process, lost support in his party's establishment and decided not to run for re-election.

This gave us the wide-open Senate race in 2004 that resulted in the election of a little-known Democratic state senator named Barack Obama.

Counterfactual musing like this is, of course, highly speculative and subject to additional "what if?" challenges (What if Hofeld had dropped out in 1992? What if the GOP had not been so destructively petulant about Fitzgerald's maverick ways?) And every successful political career — or, heck, successful career of any sort — is moved along by forces and events taking place at great remove that, only in retrospect, look like fortunate happenstance.

Critics as well as supporters of Obama have remarked on his incredibly good political luck, including a succession of unexpectedly weak, damaged or just plain goofy, self-immolating opponents. Though I'd note that, unlike a lot of winning politicians, he didn't enjoy the happy accident of birth — being born into wealth or power — that benefits so many.

But to an extent that's true, that luck really began on Oct. 15, 1991, with the vote Dixon didn't need to cast.

Posted at 03:04:00 AM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Yep, I think that's too much conjecture - the primary mover in this sequence would be Al Holfeld, who wasn't motivated by Thomas (as far as I recall, he wasn't motivated by anythng Dixon did as much as he just wanted to be senator) and did most of CMB's work for her by relentlessly attacking Dixon.

You can connect A to B, B to C, and perhaps C to D (but that's a stretch), but this doesn't mean the progression from A to D supports the conclusion -- Dixon's loss brought about Obama's successful run for senator and president. Too many other variables in the mix.

If closed files hadn't mysteriously been leaked (David Axelrod, anyone?) Obama may not be president.

Seriously, way too many other potential factors could also have derailed Obama along the way. It's definitely not a straight line from Alan Dixon to Obama.

I DO remember, however, a column Mary Schmich once wrote about Dawn Clark Netsch. In it she commented on her 7th- or 8th-grade class with one more girl than boy in it, which led to a girl class VP (or whatever). She said something about "drawing a straight line" from that kind of thinking to Carol Mosely Braun and the ire of women who put her in the winner's seat.

One can also think about how third party candidates affected political ascendancy. Al Hofeld in the 1992 senate race and Ralph Nader in the 2000 presidential race. Combined with the 9/11 events, did this pave the way for the young Illinois senator?

"Throw the Illinois Republican Party, led by Denny Hastert and Judy-Barr Topinka."

If I may be so tangential as to share a photo I took of Judy last Sunday at the Pride Parade. Think of it as getting to know more about Dr X. I don't recall if I revealed in meet the commenters that I've become obsessed with street photography after years of collecting photos.

Wait, you're saying that actual political events might have had something to do with Obama becoming President? I thought he became President as the result of a sinister plot, begun by his 17-year old mother as she sat in Kenya awaiting his birth, which she executed from the grave over a decade after her death, that led to his election.

I have to check the batteries on my Conspiri-o-Meter. I think it got jammed when Obama's long-form birth certificate was released.

You could credit Ralph Nader! Had it not been for him, Al Gore would have been president and who knows what political conditions would have been like. I'm thinking with probably two terms of a Dem president, the conditions would not have been right for Obama.

Tom Blackford -- I agree on the 16 years -- that is why I said if Gore had won, conditions wouldn't have been right for Obama eight years later. Might not have been clear.

And Gore HAS turned into a mess, hasn't he. I think he was OK then, though. I always felt his big mistake (besides being kind of smug and judgmental, though I did vote for him) was that he kept Clinton at arm's length instead of letting him campaign for him.

Oh goodness, yes. That Nobel prize, his involvement in an Academy-award winning documentary, Emmy and Grammy and being vindicated against all the yahoos who tried to shout that climate change wasn't a thing or was overblown has been just horrible for him. And on the plus side of how Current TV didn't work out, it gave Al Jazeera a foothold in the US so that's a) a nice alternate news source and b) a stick in the eye to a lot of people.

His being unmasked as a sexual weirdo (what WAS that nickname), his hypocrisy when it comes to his own so-called carbon footprint -- JJF, I was thinking of that kind of thing. To many he's more regarded as a blowhard now, than a serious thinker. Clearly, you are not among them, which is your privilege and right.

I agree entirely with this analysis. Obama was largely unknown in 2004. The week before the primary Emil Jones was going from table to table at the Springfield Hilton breakfast buffet, shaking hands and encouraging diners to "Vote for my man, Barack Obama!" and frankly not encountering much name recognition.

The Clarence Thomas vote killed Dixon's chances for re-election. The three-way race was part of the puzzle, but that vote did him in. But you have to consider who replaced Dixon. Obama was very lucky that Carol Moseley Braun was uniquely unsuited to being a Senator. If she were remotely competent she would still be in the Senate today and Obama would be something other than President.

If I start thinking about all the Senate Democrats who caved in and voted to confirm Thomas, I'll just grind my teeth until they hurt and this paperwork I'm supposed to be doing will get all dim in a red haze.

So instead I'll say, Dr. X, nice photo. I have always liked Judy. I wish she had had a chance to show her stuff as governor.

Why not carry your logic one. two or three steps further, and say that Barack Obama would not have become President if it wasn't for Clarence Thomas being nominated for the Supreme Court? Or George Bush appointing him? Or Thurgood Marshall for retiring? There is more poetry in starting the falling dominoes with them than Al the Pal.

An interesting analysis of the Dixon/Braun/Fitzgerald/Obama and you could be quite right. I would add that Braun was the prototype of the personable, photogenic but clearly unqualified candidate that was additionally carried along by the 'historic moment'. I remember many media comments and supporters who made the 'chance to make history, with this candidate' rationale for supporting Braun - that were repeated in the President's campaign.

It really wasn't Senator Dixon who helped give us President Obama, the real reason we have President Obama is Jeri Ryan. If going to a sex club with your husband would have been acceptable, we would have had Jack Ryan as senator.

ZORN REPLY -- I don't think so. Ryan wasn't all that good at politics and Obama was a phenom that year.

If I'm going to believe Dixon led to Obama as president, then I'm going to blame him for Rauner if he gets elected governor.

Obama's vacated senate seat prompts Blagojevich's crime of trying to profit off its sale. He's impeached and convicted leaving Quinn with a huge deficit and budget mess, which forces him to raise taxes. Quinn's popularity sinks, giving Rauner an opening to the state capitol, though he doesn't have a clue on how to govern or will tell anyone his budget plan after cutting taxes, let alone his social positions. But, he's wealthy, proving money can buy elections.

Dixon's vote didn't put Thomas over-the-top, but had he signaled a "no" vote one or two other Senators might have followed.

If not, it shows how little influence Dixon had among his colleagues in the U.S. Senate.

And that might be the larger indictment of Dixon.

Dixon was the weakest link of the political establishment. Of course all of his backers (cited above) were "for" the status quo. It's how they all came and/or remained in power, including the "maverick" Sen. Paul Simon.

That Dixon did not regret his vote is not surprising. He wasn't so much voting for Clarence a Thomas as much as he was voting for the status quo of which he was a part. What happened afterward was a mini-revolution of which he was the most expendable "victim."

Bottom line: Dixon was a cog who was easily removed and dismissed. He was not a leader but a useful part of the machine.

"prompts Blagojevich's crime of trying to profit off its sale. He's impeached and convicted leaving Quinn with a huge deficit and budget mess, which forces him to raise taxes. Quinn's popularity sinks, giving Rauner an opening to the state capitol,"
The above is not Dixon's fault, this is the fault of Blogo and Quinn.
Rauner's wealth is not a factor. Elections may be bought with a great deal of money. Where that money comes from,IE: unions, corporations, donors is of no matter. Rauner has wealth, so do unions, moot point. The blame for a poor preforming Illinois goes on Blogo and Quinn.

I'd argue as much blame exists for Cullerton and Madigan, not to mention previous administrations (from both parties) going back ages. Federal prisoners Blago and Ryan contributed, as did potential future federal prisoner Quinn. (
See the unaccounted-for $54 million.)

But sorry, Edgar and Thompson contributed too. The deficits, pension obligations and debt did't JUST start this decade, ya know. There is a boatload of bipartisan blame to share here in IL.

Joseph, if there is one indicator I don't use to measure achievement, it is awards like the ones you cited. I am not a climate change denier, but Al Gore is as guilty as the worst of them in abusing science in the way he associates specific events, such as hurricanes when convenient, to bolster his case. Many of his gloom and doom predictions have already passed their expiration dates. He is a carbon consumer of the first water and a billionaire nonpareil. Current was a bad joke financed by other people but made him rich because Al J paid a fortune for it to gain access to all the channels it guaranteed on cable systems.

Love those counterfactuals! Eric's column reminds me of two others by great columnists, about how one man (Reagan) became president, and another (Nelson Rockefeller) never did.
1. When Rockefeller died, Russell Baker wrote that Rocky's best chance of becoming president went down the drain when Truman defeated Dewey in 1948. His logic, assuming the Korean War had still happened, was that that frustrating war would have made Dewey unpopular, leading to election of a placid Democrat in the 1950s, either Adlai Stevenson or Dwight Eisenhower (who had chances to run as a Democrat). After a placid Democrat, Baker wrote, the country would have been ready for a go-go Republican, and as he put it, "who else but Nelse?"
2. When Reagan was inaugurated, Pete Hamill wrote that Reagan never would have been elected had Robert Kennedy not been assassinated. I think Hamill punted on whether RFK would have been nominated in 1968, but he argued that either he would have beaten Richard Nixon if nominated, or that RFK would have gone all-out to elect Hubert Humphrey over Nixon.
Either way, no Nixon, no Watergate. Without Watergate, Hamill contended, Jimmy Carter would never have been elected. And Reagan could only have been elected over a Democrat as unpopular as Carter became.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.